The headline could be understood to mean that there was a ‘hamas camera’ at the place where, separately, other journalists, including Reuters, also had cameras. It doesn’t make it ok, of course, but it would mean that Reuters isn’t calling its own journalist a ‘Hamas camera’
No. Israel confirmed that they targeted the Reuters camera which was livestreaming. They went as far as claiming that KHAMAASSS disguised it with a cloth (there was a white cloth over the camera to prevent it from overheating in the sun). And a female journalist wearing a white headscarf. There was no other camera nearby. Also crossposting other people’s comments is not a thing.
Also bombing a hospital with journalists because you saw a camera has to be the absolute dumbest excuse possible and Reuters doesn’t even mention that even in the off-chance that it was true it would be a massive violation of international law.
To copy my comment from !ManufacturingConsent@lemmy.ml (since you unhelpfully didn’t crosspost it)
No. Israel confirmed that they targeted the Reuters camera which was livestreaming. They went as far as claiming that KHAMAASSS disguised it with a cloth (there was a white cloth over the camera to prevent it from overheating in the sun). And a female journalist wearing a white headscarf. There was no other camera nearby. Also crossposting other people’s comments is not a thing.
Also bombing a hospital with journalists because you saw a camera has to be the absolute dumbest excuse possible and Reuters doesn’t even mention that even in the off-chance that it was true it would be a massive violation of international law.
Crossposting comments is not a thing, but crossposting posts is, and you didn’t do that. I understand and apologise for the confusion, though.
Why reuters not condemning it’s journalist killing it’s journalist?